05-01-2003, 10:39 AM
|
#24
|
|
Guest
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Timber Loftis:
quote:
Originally posted by Thorfinn:
While we are at it, we could also tag on a requirement that they explain the Constitutional justification for the act. Congressman Ron Paul and I forget the guy from Arizona have tried to introduce it for several years, but it never gets very far. Imagine that...
|
Useless to require this in the days of rampant commerce clause jurisprudence. It would need a similar back-step in commerce clause breadth and power to compliment it.
BTW - you know all this does is limit the feds. States have general police power. The states powers are only limited by what the constitution reserves for the fed, and states can step in to fill in any power you take from the feds - and likely would. How would you address that? [/QUOTE] I may be too idealistic on this, but I believe that at the state and local levels, the general populace has a real and much greater control over their politicians...If the people seriously don't like a policy it can be gone in the next election....not quite that easy at the fed level.
|
|
|
|